DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 31 recites “The display panel according to any one of claims 30”. Examiner assumes this is a typographical error and Applicant intended to claim “The display panel according to claim 30”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9, 11-18, 20, 25, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 9, 11-18, 20, and 25 recite (or depend upon a claim which recites) “the first peripheral sub-region” and/or “the light shielding layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. No first peripheral sub-region or light shielding layer are previously recited, and thus it is unclear to what “the first peripheral sub-region” and “the light shielding layer” are referring.
Claim 32 recites “the vertex angles of the cover plate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No vertex angles or cover plate are previously recited, and thus it is unclear to what “the vertex angles of the cover plate” are referring.
The scope of the claimed subject matter cannot be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art, and thus claims 9, 11-18, 20, 25, and 32 are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 24, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al. (US 2020/0185483) in view of Bao et al. (US 2022/0102456).
Regarding claim 1, Peng discloses a display panel comprising a displaying region and a peripheral region surrounding the displaying region, wherein: the peripheral region comprises a bonding sub-region located on one side of the displaying region (abstract, figs. 2-4, ¶ 44-45, ¶ 68-76, display region 210 with peripheral region outside of display region, bonding pads 23 and 24);
a region of the peripheral region other than the bonding sub-region comprises a first testing-unit group and a second testing-unit group, and each of the first testing-unit group and the second testing-unit group comprises one or more circuit testing units (figs. 2-4, ¶ 44-45, ¶ 68-76, test pads 21 and 22 grouped on left and right sides of substrate 20);
the displaying region comprises a first lateral side and a second lateral side that extend in a first direction and face each other, wherein the first direction refers to a direction from the bonding sub-region pointing to the displaying region (figs. 2-4, ¶ 44-45, ¶ 68-76, left and right sides of display region 210);
a maximum distance from the first testing-unit group to the first lateral side in a direction perpendicular to the first direction is equal to a maximum distance from the second testing-unit group to the second lateral side in the direction perpendicular to the first direction (figs. 2-4, ¶ 44-45, ¶ 68-76, test pads 21 and 22 on left and right sides of substrate 20 arranged symmetrically with respect to center of display region 210),
Peng fails to disclose the bonding sub-region contains bonding terminals, and a quantity of the circuit testing units is greater than a quantity of the bonding terminals.
Bao teaches the bonding sub-region contains bonding terminals, and a quantity of the circuit testing units is greater than a quantity of the bonding terminals (figs. 1-2, ¶ 57-60, test pixel circuits with test pads in non-display area; see also ¶ 99-100, test pixel circuits located in the test area 4 and/or border area 3).
Peng and Bao are both directed to display devices with test terminals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Peng with the test circuits of Bao since such a modification provides the accuracy of detecting the electrical properties of the display may be improved (Bao, ¶ 60) and batch detection may be realized (Bao, ¶ 60).
Regarding claim 2, Peng discloses wherein a minimum distance from the first testing-unit group to the first lateral side in the direction perpendicular to the first direction is equal to a minimum distance from the second testing-unit group to the second lateral side in the direction perpendicular to the first direction (figs. 2-4, ¶ 44-45, ¶ 68-76, test pads 21 and 22 on left and right sides of substrate 20 arranged symmetrically with respect to center of display region 210).
Regarding claim 4, Peng discloses wherein the peripheral region comprises a first peripheral sub-region, and the first peripheral sub-region is located on one side of the displaying region that is farther from the bonding sub-region (figs. 2-4, ¶ 44-45, ¶ 68-76, test pads 21 and 22 on opposite side from bonding pads 23 and 24);
some of the circuit testing units in the first testing-unit group are located in the first peripheral sub-region, and the other of the circuit testing units in the first testing-unit group are located in a region of the peripheral region that is closest to the first lateral side (figs. 2-4, ¶ 44-45, ¶ 68-76, e.g., test pads 21 and 22 grouped on left side of substrate 20);
and some of the circuit testing units in the second testing-unit group are located in the first peripheral sub-region, and the other of the circuit testing units in the second testing-unit group are located in a region of the peripheral region that is closest to the second lateral side (figs. 2-4, ¶ 44-45, ¶ 68-76, e.g., test pads 21 and 22 grouped on right side of substrate 20).
Regarding claim 5, Peng discloses wherein connecting lines between geometric centers of the circuit testing units in the first testing-unit group and connecting lines between geometric centers of the circuit testing units in the second testing-unit group individually form two intersecting line segments; or the connecting lines between the geometric centers of the circuit testing units in the first testing-unit group and the connecting lines between the geometric centers of the circuit testing units in the second testing-unit group are arc lines (figs. 2-4, ¶ 44-45, ¶ 68-76, test pads 21 and 22 grouped on left and right sides of substrate 20 form a line).
Regarding claim 6, Peng discloses wherein geometric centers of the circuit testing units in the first testing-unit group are located in a same line segment, and geometric centers of the circuit testing units in the second testing-unit group are located in a same line segment (figs. 2-4, ¶ 44-45, ¶ 68-76, test pads 21 and 22 grouped on left and right sides of substrate 20 form a line).
Regarding claim 9, Peng discloses wherein all of the circuit testing units in the first testing-unit group and the second testing-unit group are located in the first peripheral sub-region, and the circuit testing units in a same group are arranged in the direction perpendicular to the first direction (figs. 2-4, ¶ 44-45, ¶ 68-76, test pads 21 and 22 grouped on left and right sides of substrate 20 form a line);
and the first testing-unit group and the second testing-unit group are arranged in the first direction; or the first testing-unit group and the second testing-unit group are arranged in the direction perpendicular to the first direction (figs. 2-4, ¶ 44-45, ¶ 68-76, test pads 21 and 22 grouped on left and right sides of substrate 20 form a line).
Regarding claim 24, Peng discloses a displaying device, wherein the displaying device comprises the display panel according to claim 1 (figs. 2-4, ¶ 44-45, ¶ 68-76, ¶ 86-87);
and the displaying device further comprises a flexible circuit board and a driving chip; or the display panel comprises a displaying controlling unit, and the displaying device further comprises a flexible circuit board (figs. 2-4, ¶ 79-84).
Regarding claim 29, Peng discloses wherein all of the circuit testing units in the first testing-unit group are located in a region of the peripheral region that is closest to the first lateral side, and all of the circuit testing units in the second testing-unit group are located in a region of the peripheral region that is closest to the second lateral side (figs. 2-4, ¶ 44-45, ¶ 68-76, test pads 21 and 22 grouped on left and right sides of substrate 20).
Claims 8, 11, 15, 20, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng in view of Bao as applied to claims 1, 4, and 9 above, and further in view of Ishii (US 2009/0236993).
Regarding claim 8, Peng in view of Bao fails to disclose wherein each of the first testing-unit group and the second testing-unit group comprises a first end closer to the bonding sub-region and a second end farther from the bonding sub-region; and a minimum distance between the first end and the displaying region in the direction perpendicular to the first direction is greater than or equal to a minimum distance between the second end and the displaying region in the direction perpendicular to the first direction.
Ishii teaches wherein each of the first testing-unit group and the second testing-unit group comprises a first end closer to the bonding sub-region and a second end farther from the bonding sub-region (figs. 1-2, ¶ 44-48, inspection terminals 111-115 and bonding pads 102);
and a minimum distance between the first end and the displaying region in the direction perpendicular to the first direction is greater than or equal to a minimum distance between the second end and the displaying region in the direction perpendicular to the first direction (figs. 1-2, ¶ 44-48, inspection terminals 111-115 parallel to side of display area).
Peng in view of Bao and Ishii are both directed to display devices with inspection terminals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Peng in view of Bao with the light-shielding layer of Ishii since such a modification provides a frame-shaped light-shielding layer defining a frame portion of the image display area (Ishii, ¶ 44) and provides an inspection circuit that reduces power consumption and malfunctioning (Ishii, ¶ 7).
Regarding claim 11, Peng in view of Bao fails to disclose wherein in a direction parallel to a plane where the substrate is located, a minimum distance from the circuit testing units in the first testing-unit group and the second testing-unit group to the light shielding layer is less than a minimum distance from the bonding terminals in the bonding sub-region to the light shielding layer.
Ishii teaches wherein in a direction parallel to a plane where the substrate is located, a minimum distance from the circuit testing units in the first testing-unit group and the second testing-unit group to the light shielding layer is less than a minimum distance from the bonding terminals in the bonding sub-region to the light shielding layer (figs. 1-2, ¶ 44-48, inspection terminals 111-115 closer to light-shielding layer 53 than bonding pads 102).
Peng in view of Bao and Ishii are both directed to display devices with inspection terminals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Peng in view of Bao with the light-shielding layer of Ishii since such a modification provides a frame-shaped light-shielding layer defining a frame portion of the image display area (Ishii, ¶ 44) and provides an inspection circuit that reduces power consumption and malfunctioning (Ishii, ¶ 7).
Regarding claim 15, Peng in view of Bao fails to disclose wherein the peripheral region further comprises a second peripheral sub-region, the second peripheral sub-region is located between the bonding sub-region and the displaying region, and the orthographic projection of the light shielding layer on the substrate falls within the region of the peripheral region other than the bonding sub-region; and a distance in the first direction between a part of an outer contour of the light shielding layer that is located in the first peripheral sub-region and the edge of the displaying region is less than a distance in the first direction between a part of the outer contour of the light shielding layer that is located in the second peripheral sub-region and the edge of the displaying region
Ishii teaches wherein the peripheral region further comprises a second peripheral sub-region, the second peripheral sub-region is located between the bonding sub-region and the displaying region, and the orthographic projection of the light shielding layer on the substrate falls within the region of the peripheral region other than the bonding sub-region (figs. 1-2, ¶ 44-48, region between pads 102 and display area);
and a distance in the first direction between a part of an outer contour of the light shielding layer that is located in the first peripheral sub-region and the edge of the displaying region is less than a distance in the first direction between a part of the outer contour of the light shielding layer that is located in the second peripheral sub-region and the edge of the displaying region (figs. 1-2, ¶ 44-48, e.g., seal area 52 and overlapping light-shielding layer 53 near pads 102 shown as wider than opposite seal area 52).
Peng in view of Bao and Ishii are both directed to display devices with inspection terminals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Peng in view of Bao with the light-shielding layer of Ishii since such a modification provides a frame-shaped light-shielding layer defining a frame portion of the image display area (Ishii, ¶ 44) and provides an inspection circuit that reduces power consumption and malfunctioning (Ishii, ¶ 7).
Regarding claim 20, Peng discloses wherein an area of an orthographic-projection pattern of the circuit testing units on the substrate is less than or equal to an area of an orthographic-projection pattern of the bonding terminals on the substrate (figs. 2-4, ¶ 44-45, ¶ 68-76, bonding pads 23 and 24 larger than test pads 21 and 22).
Regarding claim 30, Peng in view of Bao fails to disclose wherein the region of the peripheral region other than the bonding sub-region comprises a light shielding layer; an inner contour of an orthographic projection of the light shielding layer on a substrate of the display panel contacts an edge of the displaying region; and both of the first testing-unit group and the second testing-unit group are located on one side of the light shielding layer that is farther from the displaying region, and orthographic projections of the first testing-unit group and the second testing-unit group on the substrate do not overlap with the orthographic projection of the light shielding layer on the substrate.
Ishii teaches wherein the region of the peripheral region other than the bonding sub-region comprises a light shielding layer (figs. 1-2, ¶ 44-48, light-shielding layer 53 defines a frame portion of the image display area);
an inner contour of an orthographic projection of the light shielding layer on a substrate of the display panel contacts an edge of the displaying region (figs. 1-2, ¶ 44-48, light-shielding layer 53 defines a frame portion of the image display area);
and both of the first testing-unit group and the second testing-unit group are located on one side of the light shielding layer that is farther from the displaying region, and orthographic projections of the first testing-unit group and the second testing-unit group on the substrate do not overlap with the orthographic projection of the light shielding layer on the substrate (figs. 1-2, ¶ 44-48, inspection terminals 111-115 outside of light-shielding layer 53).
Peng in view of Bao and Ishii are both directed to display devices with inspection terminals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Peng in view of Bao with the light-shielding layer of Ishii since such a modification provides a frame-shaped light-shielding layer defining a frame portion of the image display area (Ishii, ¶ 44) and provides an inspection circuit that reduces power consumption and malfunctioning (Ishii, ¶ 7).
Regarding claim 31, Bao further teaches wherein the display panel further comprises a detecting unit, the detecting unit comprises a plurality of auxiliary sub-pixels, and the auxiliary sub-pixels are located in a region of the peripheral region that is close to the first lateral side, and/or the auxiliary sub-pixels are located in a region of the peripheral region that is close to the second lateral side (figs. 1-2, ¶ 57-60, test pixel circuits with test pads in non-display area; see also ¶ 99-100, test pixel circuits located in the test area 4 and/or border area 3);
a structure of the auxiliary sub-pixels is the same as a structure of the sub-pixels in the displaying region (figs. 1-2, ¶ 57-60, test pixel circuits with test pads in non-display area; see also ¶ 99-100, test pixel circuits located in the test area 4 and/or border area 3).
Ishii further teaches the light shielding layer covers the detecting unit (figs. 1-2, ¶ 44-48, light-shielding layer 53 defines a frame portion of the image display area).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng in view of Bao as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yu (US 2005/0046439).
Regarding claim 12, Peng in view of Bao fails to disclose wherein the display panel comprises at least one third testing-unit group, the third testing-unit group comprises a plurality of transistor testing units, and the third testing-unit group is located in the first peripheral sub-region; and a distance between the transistor testing units and the light shielding layer is greater than or equal to a distance between the circuit testing units and the light shielding layer.
Yu teaches wherein the display panel comprises at least one third testing-unit group, the third testing-unit group comprises a plurality of transistor testing units, and the third testing-unit group is located in the first peripheral sub-region (fig. 3A, ¶ 24-25, detection pads 15 with transistors 39);
and a distance between the transistor testing units and the light shielding layer is greater than or equal to a distance between the circuit testing units and the light shielding layer (fig. 3A, ¶ 24-25, transistors 39 farther from display area than detection pads 15).
Peng in view of Bao and Yu are both directed to display devices with inspection pads. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Peng in view of Bao with the transistors of Yu since such a modification reduces cost and promotes the maneuverability of the detection facility (Yu, ¶ 22).
Regarding claim 13, Yu further teaches wherein the third testing-unit group is located on one side of all of the circuit testing units that is farther from the displaying region, a gap is provided between the third testing-unit group and the light shielding layer, and both of the first testing-unit group and the second testing-unit group are located in the gap (fig. 3A, ¶ 24-25, transistors 39 farther from display area than detection pads 15).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng in view of Bao and Yu as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Shi et al. (CN 114236923; published 3/25/22, machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 14, Yu further teaches wherein the display panel comprises two third testing-unit groups, the two third testing-unit groups are arranged in the direction perpendicular to the first direction (fig. 3A, ¶ 24-25, e.g., transistors 39 on right and left side of display).
Peng in view of Bao and Yu fails to disclose the first peripheral sub-region comprises an encoding pattern, and the encoding pattern is located between the two third testing-unit groups; and a minimum distance between the encoding pattern and the light shielding layer is greater than or equal to a minimum distance between the transistor testing units and the light shielding layer.
Shi teaches the first peripheral sub-region comprises an encoding pattern, and the encoding pattern is located between the two third testing-unit groups; and a minimum distance between the encoding pattern and the light shielding layer is greater than or equal to a minimum distance between the transistor testing units and the light shielding layer (figs. 1-4, test pads P in non-display area shown, identification pattern M placed in middle of test pads, see p. 4 of translation).
Peng in view of Bao and Yu and Shi are both directed to display devices with inspection pads. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Peng in view of Bao and Yu with the encoding pattern of Shi since such a modification provides convenient recognition of the mark pattern and realizes the narrow frame of the display (Shi, translation p. 3).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng in view of Bao and Ishii as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Koide et al. (US 2018/0356668).
Regarding claim 16, Peng in view of Bao and Ishii fails to disclose wherein a shape of the orthographic projection of the light shielding layer on the substrate comprises a rectangle having four rounded corners; and a curvature radius of two of the rounded corners of the rectangle that are closer to the bonding sub-region is greater than a curvature radius of two of the rounded corners of the rectangle that are closer to the first peripheral sub-region.
Koide teaches wherein a shape of the orthographic projection of the light shielding layer on the substrate comprises a rectangle having four rounded corners (fig. 8, ¶ 85-91, light shielding layer BM has a frame shape with rounded corners);
and a curvature radius of two of the rounded corners of the rectangle that are closer to the bonding sub-region is greater than a curvature radius of two of the rounded corners of the rectangle that are closer to the first peripheral sub-region (fig. 8, ¶ 85-91, light shielding layer BM has a frame shape with rounded corners, different radius of curvatures RA1, RA2, RA3).
Peng in view of Bao and Ishii and Koide are both directed to display devices with light shielding layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Peng in view of Bao and Ishii with the layer shape of Koide since such a modification optimizes layout and reduces peripheral area (Koide, ¶ 4) and provides a light-shielding layer with a frame shape and four extending portions (Koide, ¶ 88-89).
Regarding claim 17, Koide further teaches wherein the display panel comprises a cover plate, the cover plate covers the displaying region and part of the area of the light shielding layer, and an outer contour of an orthographic projection of the cover plate on the substrate falls within the orthographic projection of the light shielding layer on the substrate (figs. 1-4, ¶ 37-41, SUB2 over layer BM, see also fig. 8; see also RX layer);
and four vertex angles of the outer contour of the orthographic projection of the cover plate on the substrate are located at the four rounded corners (figs. 1-4, ¶ 37-41, SUB2 over layer BM, see also fig. 8; see also RX layer).
Regarding claim 18, Koide further teaches wherein an area of a region of a part of the light shielding layer that is located in the first peripheral sub-region that does not overlap with the cover plate is less than an area of a region of a part of the light shielding layer that is located in the second peripheral sub-region that does not overlap with the cover plate (figs. 1-4, ¶ 37-41, SUB2 over layer BM, see also fig. 8; see also RX layer).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng in view of Bao as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Kaehler et al. (US 2019/0113752).
Regarding claim 25, Peng in view of Bao fails to disclose a wearable device, wherein the wearable device comprises two instances of the displaying device according to claim 24, and further comprises two annular first supports, the displaying devices are fixed to the first supports, and each of the first supports covers a region of the peripheral region of the display panel that is not provided with the light shielding layer; and the circuit testing units in one of the displaying devices and the circuit testing units in the other of the displaying devices are arranged in mirror symmetry.
Kaehler teaches a wearable device, wherein the wearable device comprises two instances of the displaying device according to claim 24 (figs. 1-2, ¶ 13-18, left eye and right eye display panels),
and further comprises two annular first supports, the displaying devices are fixed to the first supports, and each of the first supports covers a region of the peripheral region of the display panel that is not provided with the light shielding layer (figs. 1-2, ¶ 13-18, housing for left eye and right eye display panels; see also fig. 5);
and the circuit testing units in one of the displaying devices and the circuit testing units in the other of the displaying devices are arranged in mirror symmetry (figs. 1-2, ¶ 13-18, left eye and right eye display panels).
Peng in view of Bao and Kaehler are both directed to display devices with peripheral circuits. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Peng in view of Bao with the wearable device of Kaehler since such a modification provides a head mounted display device with an improved user experience (Kaehler, ¶ 12).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng in view of Bao and Ishii as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Fujimori (US 2016/0066774).
Regarding claim 32, Peng in view of Bao and Ishii fails to disclose wherein the display panel further comprises four marking patterns, the marking patterns are located on one side of the light shielding layer that is away from the substrate, and orthographic projections of the vertex angles of the cover plate on the substrate and orthographic projections of the marking patterns on the substrate at least partially overlap.
Fujimori teaches wherein the display panel further comprises four marking patterns, the marking patterns are located on one side of the light shielding layer that is away from the substrate, and orthographic projections of the vertex angles of the cover plate on the substrate and orthographic projections of the marking patterns on the substrate at least partially overlap (fig. 13, ¶ 83-84, alignment marks 31 formed on light shielding pattern in corners of cover glass 30; see also ¶ 10-11, ¶ 79, four alignment marks used to achieve highly accurate alignment).
Peng in view of Bao and Ishii and Fujimori are both directed to devices with light shielding layers and cover plates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Peng in view of Bao and Ishii with the alignment marks of Fujimori since such a modification achieves highly accurate alignment (Fujimori, ¶ 79) and provides that the marks can be formed simultaneously with the formation of the light shielding pattern (Fujimori, ¶ 84).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH L CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-6 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEITH L CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights